Browse thread
[Caml-list] syntax foo
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Alexander V. Voinov <avv@q...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] syntax foo |
Hi All, Markus Mottl wrote: > > let*-form, ie. a sequence of bindings, each of which is in the scope of the I also don't understand (maybe I've read this long ago and forgot the underlying reasoning) why the burden on distinguishing between 'let' and 'let rec' is laid on the programmer? Can't a parser figure out when a function is recursive and when not? I believed that in a functional language all functions are recursive by default. Alexander ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr